If those volumes weren't themselves pieces of pseudoscientific junk, then that might have helped.
Bear in mind that you can get a PhD in theology, and that a Juris Doctor is considered post-graduate, and so on, and yes, that's entirely believable. Also, that group is the most likely to believe in pure evolution; another way to phrase that point would be "the group with the lowest likelihood of believing in pure creationism are the people with post-graduate studies."
That minister declared that gays should be imprisoned in concentration camps. The poster said that adults who continue to believe in a shared invisible friend should be tolerated and pitied. It is in fact the exact opposite. Also, self-perpetuating mass memes are a terrible source for morality; you are admitting that if you were not constantly afraid that God is watching everything you do and threatening you with punishment for it, you would have no qualms about going out and shooting up a bus stop? Not relying on millennia-old goatherders for morality leaves quite a lot of philosophy open for alternatives. "Do your best to not be a dick to other people" is a very simple basis for morality, but it works a lot better than any system that produces, say, the Westboro Baptists.
Except that it does in fact deal perfectly well with 'irreducible complexity' and entropy, and is a 'theory' in the same sense that gravity is a 'theory.' To point to the creationist's favorite misunderstanding, an eye is not 'irreducibly complex' because it is perfectly possible for structures necessary to reach the current state to evolve away after their function is superseded by later development. Try watching a little PBS.
Like the poster above said, no evidence. Those links have about as much evidentiary value as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I used to be a Prime mover. But I haven't taken Optimus off the shelf in a while.
By using European numerical conventions that use a period instead of a comma to separate out the thousands place.
I always thought it was a better line just as "If I don't survive, tell my wife."
"I like having a police and fire department." It was quite recently that one particular homeowner discovered the downside to not paying for a fire department. In a 100% Republican-controlled county, his town opted to not pay for fire coverage via taxes, instead allowing individual residents of the rural surrounding areas to voluntarily subscribe to the firefighting services of the nearby town. This guy didn't, and then was terribly upset that his offer to pay the fee while his house was burning was rejected. Sorry, buddy. You want fire coverage? That's what taxes are for. If your political philosophy objects, elect people who let things like this happen, and you can deal with the consequences. It's the on-your-ownership society.
The share paid by the top 20% has gone up because the percentage of the national income accumulated by the top 20% has gone up by far more. If you have 100 people, 20 of whom make 100,000 each and 80 of whom make 10,000 each, and everyone pays a flat 10% tax, then the top 20% will pay 200,000 total while the bottom 80% pays 160,000 total. Then adjust it over time so the top 20 make 1,000,000 each while the bottom 80% make 20,000 each, but give the top 20 a 5% rate instead, and the top 20 pay 1,000,000 total while the bottom pay 320,000 - and so those top 20% who are making 50 times more than everyone else complain about how they're 'unfairly' paying too much, despite paying half the tax rate. It's a gross simplification, but the effect you're noting is not the wealthy paying an unfair amount; it's an effect of growing concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, which is not a stable situation.
The Bush deficits weren't wholly and utterly his fault, but you can rather easily place an enormous percentage of them on him spending a trillion dollars on a war he chose to start, and a trillion dollars on a tax cut that went disproportionately to the haves and the have-mores.
Google 'Canadian National Anthem.'
Yeah! Those illegal immigrants who made Chinatowns and Jewish areas in American cities are just asking to be hunted down! Oh, and let's not forget Little Havana down in Florida, or all those darn Irish bars all over the place! For that matter, those traitorous Southerners are real ungrateful twerps, insisting on clinging to their outmoded racist culture when they were let back into the US, and their descendants STILL haven't adopted American cultural norms yet!
Actually, the only group to have taken steps to create a believable estimate was CBS News, who hired a company to take aerial photography of the crowd from multiple angles. Their estimate was 85,000 plus or minus 9,000 - so the 'low end' was 76,000 and the high end 94,000.
Amusingly enough, Cracked had an article that included the unregulated state of flamethrowers not too long ago. I followed up, and as best I could find (and IANAL, etc) they were correct. I only checked a couple of states, but neither covered flamethrowers. Reading the definition of 'destructive device' (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00005845----000-.html), I think you might be able to make a decent case that a flamethrower does not in fact qualify as a 'similar device' on the grounds that, unlike everything else in the Act, a flamethrower does not have a projectile component.